axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Srinath Perera" <>
Subject Re: [Axis2]UnsupportedOperationException on InOut MEP????
Date Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:53:48 GMT
I think major point is WSDL have a notion  that *everything is
explained with respect to the Service Provider* in all times. (I think
both you and glen says a the first F2F this is done to avoid need to
have a client specific WSDL) .

Even though looking the things at the Service Requester's point of
view from the client can argued to be correct, with this model we are
using MEP names from WSDL spec but we break *everything is explained
with respsect to the Service Provider* rule. This will lead to lot of
confusion. If we are using names from WSDL we must be consistsnt with
their model.

Think for a moment following happens?

Say one of my lab mate come and asked me "Why you guys call
Request-Response a InOutMEPClient?". Then I explain how we are
consistent with WSDL spec and explain everything with respect to the
server ... so on

If he come to me tommrrow and ask me why my service fails saying
"InOutMep not found"? What am I suppose to say? I have to say my last
explanation is no longer true .. this is new interpretations ... so

If we use names from WSDL and break their model of *everything is
explained with respect to the Service Provider* we are going to have
lot of confused users and developers

On 3/3/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 20:16 -0500, Srinath Perera wrote:
> > is there a way to name operations in a way it is less confusing and so
> > do away with MEP based names.  (e.g. SendRecive Operation ..
> > ReciveSendOperation ) We explained every body saying since MEP is
> > relative to the service provider .. we called request-response InOut
> > based on the argument.
> I think the names we have are fine- the names come from the message
> exchange pattern: so a client using an In-Out operation of a service
> executes an Out-In message exchange pattern. That is correct and
> accurate both w.r.t. the actual messages flowing and the WSDL.
> > Now if we start look at the things in the service requester's point of
> > view (while still using MEP names) .. it will be confusing. I have
> > mixed feeling on this ..
> I don't think its confusing: we're not mixing anything .. we're *always*
> looking at the underlying message exchange. WSDL is a description of
> that message exchange at the service from the point of view of the
> service. In our case, we're not generating WSDLs for the client (but we
> could if necessary) and it'd have reversed operations .. which again is
> the correct behavior.
> Sanjiva.

Srinath Perera:

View raw message